Mandatory Human Rights & Environmental Due Diligence Legislation in Asia: 2026 Outlook

The last several weeks have brought more clarity on the shape of mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation in Europe, with the EU’s omnibus legislation nearing completion. Countries in Asia also are moving forward with legislation. In this post, we discuss proposals in South Korea, Thailand and Indonesia that may result in the adoption of new requirements in 2026. Keep in mind that the proposals discussed below are not final. They may not be adopted or the final requirements may be significantly different. The acrimonious back-and-forth on the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive illustrates how similar legislation can evolve and go off the rails. Many of the same considerations are likely to be hotly debated in Asia. While it is premature for US-based (and other) multinationals to start preparing for mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence requirements in these jurisdictions, they should at a minimum be monitoring developments, since legislation may ultimately have direct or indirect impacts. As with the CSDDD, some companies also will want to help shape legislation – including globally harmonized approaches – through engagement with national governments and legislators, directly or through trade associations. South Korea South Korea has two competing bills. The first bill initially was introduced to the Korean National Assembly in September 2023, but expired at the end of the National Assembly term. In June 2025, Representative Jung Tae-ho reintroduced the bill, proposing adoption of the Act on the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment for Sustainable Business Management (Bill No. 2210837) (the Jung bill), after it underwent review by the Ministry of Government Legislation. More recently, in November, Representative Park Hong-bae introduced a bill proposing the Act on Human Rights and Environmental Protection for Sustainable Management of Companies (Bill No. 2213897) (the Park bill). By its terms, the Park bill would enter into force two years after its adoption. The Park bill is further described below. The Jung bill is discussed in our earlier post here. Basic obligation Under the Park bill, companies under Article 169 of the Korean Commercial Act with their head office in South Korea would have a basic obligation to give priority to human rights and environmental protection in their business activities and supply chain management. Companies would have a duty of care to prevent human rights and environmental risks from occurring within the scope of their practical control, and an obligation to swiftly and effectively remedy any resulting damage. Subject companies In addition to the basic obligation described above, the Park bill proposes additional obligations for companies meeting specified size thresholds. Companies under Article 169 of the Korean Commercial Act with their head office in South Korea – other than SMEs, specified public enterprises and public institutions – would have due diligence and reporting obligations (described below) if they have 1,000 or more full-time employees and revenue of at least KRW 500 billion (approximately US$340 million) in the previous financial year. As proposed, the calculation method for determining employees and revenue would be set by presidential decree. The thresholds in the Park bill are higher than those in the Jung bill. The latter proposes a 500-employee threshold and revenue of at least KRW 200 billion in the previous financial year. The Jung bill also explicitly scopes in foreign companies that have established a business place in South Korea pursuant to Article 614 of the Commercial Act. Management systems and policy statement Like the Jung bill, the Park bill would require subject companies to implement specified management systems that would need to be included in a policy statement and regularly reviewed and improved. Responsible manager: The CEO or managing director of the company would be the responsible manager, responsible for the operation and oversight of the due diligence program. The responsible manager would need to report to the board of directors and annually obtain approval of the policy and due diligence report (described below). If a subject company is liable to a third party for damages due to the responsible manager’s intent or negligence in neglecting these operation and oversight duties, the responsible manager would be jointly and severally liable with the subject company for the damages. Board committee: If a subject company has at least KRW two trillion of total assets, its board of directors would need to establish a board committee responsible for due diligence. Grievance mechanism: Subject companies would need to have a grievance reporting body for interested persons to report and consult on human rights and environmental risks. The grievance reporting body would need to ensure accessibility and anonymity, as well as fairness and reliability, including through transparent disclosure of reporting outcomes. Additional details regarding the installation and operation of grievance reporting systems would be determined by presidential decree. If a company receives a substantiated report through the grievance mechanism of a potential risk or incident covered by the Act, it would need to promptly investigate and evaluate the risk, as described below. Identification and evaluation of risks Subject companies would need to at least annually identify and evaluate existing or potential human rights and environmental risks in their supply chain. This would include any negative impact on human rights and the environment which has occurred or is likely to occur due to the company’s business or actions of its supply chain, including pertaining to fundamental rights guaranteed by the South Korean Constitution. If a company identifies risks, it would need to prioritize them based on their seriousness and likelihood and implement mitigation measures. If the risk is in the company’s supply chain, it would be responsible for taking proportionate and reasonable mitigation measures within the scope of its practical influence. Companies would need to regularly evaluate the effectiveness of their mitigation measures and, where needed in accordance with the results of the evaluation, make improvements. Annual reporting Subject companies would need to annually publish a report describing the results of their human rights and environmental due diligence, the mitigation measures used to address the applicable risks and the company’s evaluation of those measures. The responsible manager would be responsible for submitting the report to the board of directors. Third-party engagement and right to information Subject companies would be required to actively communicate with stakeholders throughout the due diligence process. The procedures and method for collecting and reflecting stakeholder opinions may be determined by presidential decree. Stakeholders could request that the company disclose information concerning its human rights and environmental due diligence. A company could refuse the request if it would be required to disclose trade secrets, personal information, information related to national security or in other situations prescribed by presidential decree. Enforcement and penalties Similar to the Jung bill, the Park bill proposes to establish a Human Rights and Environmental Dispute Mediation Committee under the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister. The Committee would be empowered to conduct investigations, mediate disputes and issue corrective orders. Stakeholders could file an objection with the Committee regarding the subject company’s performance of its due diligence under the Act. In connection with the Committee’s examination of the objection, the company and the stakeholders would have the opportunity to respond and be heard. If a company is found by the Committee to have violated the Act or failed to perform its obligations under the Act without good cause, the Committee would have the authority to order the company to take corrective action. The company would be required to implement the Committee’s corrective order within the time period set by the Committee, unless there is a justifiable reason for not doing so. The Committee would be empowered to monitor compliance with the corrective order. If a company causes damage in violation of the Act, it would be liable for compensation unless the company is able to show that there was no intention or negligence on its part. The Park bill also contemplates administrative penalties for specific violations. An administrative fine of up to KRW 10 million could be levied for: Failing to report the due diligence policy or due diligence report to the board of directors; Failing to identify a human rights or environmental risk; Failing to implement a mitigation measure against a human rights or environmental risk; Stating false facts in a due diligence report; Refusing to disclose information in accordance with third-party information rights, without good cause; and Failing to comply with a corrective order from the Committee. Unlike the Jung bill, the Park bill does not provide for criminal liability. Thailand In July 2025, Thailand’s Ministry of Justice introduced for consultation an initial draft of the Act on the Promotion of Responsible Business Conduct. After internal consultations, a second draft was circulated in September. The draft has not yet been formally introduced into the legislative process. As proposed, the Act would take effect one year after publication in the Government Gazette. Basic obligation Like the Korea proposals, Thailand’s draft includes a basic obligation/general prohibition for companies to respect human rights and avoid environmental harm by carrying out due diligence. Companies would need to comply with applicable laws, relevant international human rights standards and international environmental standards (both sets of standards would be listed out in the Act). Subject companies “Large enterprises” also would be required to implement specified management systems and policies and carry out human rights and environmental due diligence across their value chain. As proposed, a “large enterprise” would be a company in the manufacturing sector with annual total revenue exceeding 500 million baht (approximately US$16 million), or a company engaged in the wholesale, retail or service sector with annual total revenue exceeding 300 million baht. Business sector would be determined based on the business classification indicated in the company’s financial statements, or, if financial statements have not yet been submitted, in its certificate of incorporation. The draft Act specifically indicates that a non-Thai company that operates in Thailand without legal personality under Thai law also would be subject to the Act so long as its revenue in Thailand exceeds the large enterprise threshold. Due diligence policy Subject companies would need to publish a human rights and environmental due diligence policy within one year after the Act takes effect. They also would be required to integrate the policy into their management or risk management policy. The policy would need to include sufficient and comprehensive details, including: A plan for implementing human rights and environmental due diligence, which could be divided into short-, mid- and long-term components; A code of conduct for conducting business with respect for human rights and the environment; The methodology for identifying, assessing and evaluating the risk of human rights violations and environmental harm; and The main stakeholders potentially affected. If a company transitions to being a large enterprise after the Act takes effect, it would need to publish its policy within one year after the end of that financial year. Subject companies would need to revise and update their policy as appropriate, and at least once every two years, taking into account any potential changes in the risks of human rights violations and environmental harm. Identifying, assessing and evaluating potential and actual violations/harm Subject companies would need to identify, assess and evaluate potential and actual violations of human rights and environmental harm throughout their value chain within one year of the Act taking effect, and then every two years thereafter. This would include violations or harm that the company causes or contributes to and violations or harm solely caused by business partners in the value chain. When evaluating potential and actual human rights violations and environmental harm, subject companies would be required to determine the issues that are the most severe and likely to occur. Severity would be based on the seriousness of the impact, the number of affected persons, the scope of the harm and the extent to which the impact is irreversible. For the assessment, subject companies would need to use quantitative and qualitative data, appropriate resources, reliable external reports, information obtained from business partners in their value chain, information from relevant stakeholders obtained through effective consultation and complaints filed by stakeholders. Subject companies would be able to prioritize the parts of their value chain which potentially have the most severe and likely impacts. The company would need to engage in effective consultation with its stakeholders to determine which parts of the value chain to prioritize. Implementing effective measures Subject companies would need to implement effective measures to prevent applicable identified human rights violations and environmental harm or, if prevention is not feasible, to mitigate the risk to the greatest extent possible. In considering the measures to be taken, the bill indicates that a company should take into account: Whether it causes or contributes to the risk or the risk is directly linked to business activities in its value chain; The extent to which the company has negotiating power over the business partner that may cause or jointly cause the risk; and The part in the value chain in which the risk occurs. Subject companies would only need to terminate a business relationship as a last resort if a measure fails to achieve significant risk mitigation. However, a company would be expected to assess whether the adverse impact from terminating a business relationship can reasonably be expected to be more severe than the adverse impact that could not be prevented or adequately mitigated. If that is the case, companies would not be required to suspend or terminate a business relationship. In determining the measures to be taken, subject companies would be required to effectively consult with their stakeholders. If a company is unable to simultaneously prevent or mitigate all risks, it would need to prioritize the issues with the most severe impact and that are the most likely to occur. The priority mitigation measures would be required to be taken without delay after the identification and assessment of the risk. The company would be required to implement further preventive measures to prevent other risks of human rights violations and environmental harm within a reasonable timeframe. Subject companies would need to continuously monitor the effectiveness of their mitigation measures and establish clearly defined indicators to assess the effectiveness of the measures. Remediation If a subject company’s business operations have caused a human rights violation or environmental harm, it would need to implement a remediation measure for the affected persons. If the company contributes to the violation or harm, it would need to contribute to remediation. A new government Human Rights and Environmental Due Diligence Oversight Committee would be responsible for issuing rules governing the conditions for providing remediation. Due diligence report Subject companies would be required to prepare a report summarizing their due diligence. The report would need to be submitted to the Committee within 180 days after the end of the company’s financial year. The first report would need to be submitted within four years after the Act takes effect. The report would also need to be made publicly available. Subject companies would need to retain related records or information concerning due diligence for a minimum of ten years from the report’s submission. Grievance mechanism Subject companies would need to have a grievance mechanism through which stakeholders could submit a complaint concerning a potential or actual human rights violation or environmental harm. The grievance mechanism would need to publicly provide a clear procedure with an indicative timeframe for each stage of its application. Complainants would need to be kept informed of the progress and provided sufficient information about the mechanism’s performance. Third-party consultation Subject companies would be required to engage in effective consultations with stakeholders or their appointed representatives throughout the due diligence process. If consultation with stakeholders is not possible, the subject company would need to consult with qualified experts who are capable of providing reliable information. Stakeholders, their appointed representatives or qualified experts, as applicable, would have the right to request that the company disclose information they consider necessary for purposes of consultation. Enforcement and penalties In addition to reviewing companies’ due diligence reports, the Human Rights and Environmental Due Diligence Oversight Committee would be responsible for investigating violations of the Act and determining administrative fines and initiating litigation before the Administrative Court. As proposed, two years after the Act comes into effect, any person would be able to submit to the Committee a complaint regarding a violation of the Act. If the Committee determines that a company has violated the Act, it could impose an administrative fine or require the company to take appropriate measures. The Committee’s decision would be made public. Under the proposed Act, a subject company may be liable for the following administrative fines: Up to one million baht if it fails to publish a due diligence policy or submit its due diligence report to the Committee; and Up to five million baht if it fails to take required due diligence steps. Indonesia Indonesia's government has been working on mandatory human rights due diligence legislation for over a year. A draft has been completed and submitted to the President’s Office for preliminary review. The bill is on a fast-track legislative pathway under the Priority National Legislative Programme, which may result in adoption as soon as this quarter. We will provide more information on this bill in future posts.